JRP Old Riverhead Ltd. v. Town of Southampton

Decision Date25 May 2010
Citation902 N.Y.S.2d 603,73 A.D.3d 1130
PartiesJRP OLD RIVERHEAD LTD., appellant, v. TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, et al., respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
902 N.Y.S.2d 603
73 A.D.3d 1130


JRP OLD RIVERHEAD LTD., appellant,
v.
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, et al., respondents.


Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 25, 2010.

902 N.Y.S.2d 603

Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe, Knauer & McNally, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (

902 N.Y.S.2d 604
David N. Yaffe, Richard Hamburger, and William P. Caffrey, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (John M. Denby of counsel), for respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, ARIEL E. BELEN, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

73 A.D.3d 1130

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for injury to property and for injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by

73 A.D.3d 1131
its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated October 1, 2009, which, among other things, denied those branches of its motion which were to compel the defendants to comply with certain discovery demands.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provisions thereof denying those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to compel the defendants to comply with discovery demands numbered 3, 4, 5, and 14, and substituting therefor provisions granting those branches of the motion, and (2) by deleting the provisions thereof denying those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to compel the defendants to comply with discovery demands numbered 2, 7, and 8; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an in camera inspection of documents responsive to those demands, and thereafter for a new determination of those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to compel the defendants to comply with discovery demands numbered 2, 7, and 8.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants Town of Southampton and the Superintendent of Highways (hereinafter together the Town) are liable for flood damage to its real property because of, among other things, the Town's negligent maintenance and repair of certain storm drains. In 2001 the Town and the plaintiff's attorneys placed a stipulation of settlement on the record in open court (hereinafter the 2001 stipulation), which required the Town, inter alia, to pay the plaintiff the principal sum of $8,500 and to complete work necessary to resolve the drainage problem by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Jimenez v. Pacheco
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 25, 2010
  • 306 Rutledge, LLC v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 27, 2011
    ...Slepoy Corp., 74 A.D.3d 1139, 1140, 902 N.Y.S.2d 426 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see JRP Old Riverhead Ltd. v. Town of Southampton, 73 A.D.3d 1130, 1132–1133, 902 N.Y.S.2d 603; Kaplan v. Herbstein, 175 A.D.2d 200, 572 N.Y.S.2d 78). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme C......
  • Walsh v. Scopetta
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 25, 2010
  • Ceballos v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 26, 2019
    ...3 N.Y.3d 46, 51, 781 N.Y.S.2d 477, 814 N.E.2d 784 ), and was properly tailored (see generally JRP Old Riverhead Ltd. v. Town of Southampton, 73 A.D.3d 1130, 1132–1133, 902 N.Y.S.2d 603 ). For the same reason, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting NYCHA's cross motion ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2014 Contents
    • August 2, 2014
    ...15:70 JP Morgan v. Whitmore , 41 A.D.3d 433, 838 N.Y.S.2d 142 (2d Dept. 2007), § 17:90 JRP Old Riverhead Ltd. v. Town of Southampton , 73 A.D.3d 1130, 902 N.Y.S.2d 603 (2d Dept. 2010), § 21:50 Juric v Bergstraesser, 105 A.D.3d 1201, 963 N.Y.S.2d 755 (3d Dept. 2013), §7:90 Justice v. King, 6......
  • Objecting during depositions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2019 Contents
    • August 2, 2019
    ...privilege because it was not prepared at the behest of the Quality Assurance committee. JRP Old Riverhead Ltd. v. Town of Southampton , 73 A.D.3d 1130, 902 N.Y.S.2d 603 (2d Dept. 2010). In action to recover injury to property resulting from claim of negligent maintenance of storm drains, on......
  • Objecting during depositions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2021 Contents
    • August 2, 2021
    ...privilege because it was not prepared at the behest of the Quality Assurance committee. JRP Old Riverhead Ltd. v. Town of Southampton , 73 A.D.3d 1130, 902 N.Y.S.2d 603 (2d Dept. 2010). In action to recover injury to property resulting from claim of negligent maintenance of storm drains, on......
  • Objecting during depositions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books New York Objections
    • May 3, 2022
    ...privilege because it was not prepared at the behest of the Quality Assurance committee. JRP Old Riverhead Ltd. v. Town of Southampton , 73 A.D.3d 1130, 902 N.Y.S.2d 603 (2d Dept. 2010). In action to recover injury to property resulting from claim of negligent maintenance of storm drains, on......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT